6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Helsinki.
7.  The applicant ran a snack bar together with his wife until 20 December 1993 when it was damaged by a fire. On 13 October 1997 the Kotka District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) convicted him of aggravated vandalism and aggravated fraud as he was found to have set the snack bar on fire and to have claimed and received compensation from an insurance company. He was sentenced to one year’s suspended imprisonment.
8.  Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed to the Kouvola Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The applicant requested an oral hearing. He also sought an order for an expert opinion on the reasons why the snack bar had caught fire.
9.  On 9 March 1998 the applicant was summoned to an oral hearing to be held before the Court of Appeal on 20 May 1998. According to the summons, the oral hearing was limited only to the fire which had started from the storage room of the snack bar (“fire 2”); another fire (“fire 1”) had started from the part of the stand where the snacks were prepared. The Court of Appeal stated that it would call three of the prosecution witnesses, who had been heard before the District Court (police officer H., investigator L. and fireman T.).
10.  In her letter of 18 May 1998 to the Court of Appeal, the applicant’s counsel requested that S., who had installed the electricity for the snack bar, be called to give evidence at the oral hearing about the reasons why the above-mentioned “fire 1” had started. S. had also been heard before the District Court.
11.  On 20 May 1998 before the hearing started, the applicant’s counsel asked the judicial secretary of the Court of Appeal whether the applicant could call witnesses who would give evidence about “fire 1” and about the reasons why the snack bar had caught fire and how the fire had then spread to the whole building. The judicial secretary did not find it possible, or desirable, that such witnesses should be heard as the hearing was limited only to “fire 2”.
12.  At the beginning of the hearing, a timetable of the proceedings was distributed to the parties according to which the hearing was limited only to “fire 2”. The above-mentioned prosecution witnesses were heard. The defence witness, S., was not. According to the applicant the statements made by the prosecution witnesses concerning “fire 1” as well as the reasons why the snack bar had caught fire were accepted by the court. According to the Government no such evidence was given before the Court of Appeal.
13.  On 13 August 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment, refusing the applicant’s request for an expert opinion. In its reasoning the court found, inter alia, as follows:
“What is said above shows that the fire which occurred in the storage room [“fire 2”] was started deliberately. This strongly supports the allegation that the fire which occurred in the room where the snacks were prepared [“fire 1”] was also deliberate, in particular, as it is unlikely that the fire would have started from the electrical devices or the electricity wires which were situated on the roof of the preparation room [“fire 1].”
14.  On 11 November 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.